December 7, 2015

"According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing '25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad' and 51% of those polled, 'agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.' Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women. Mr. Trump stated, 'Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.'"

ADDED: What are people saying about Trump's statements? Condemnations all around? But what if — perhaps today — 10 sleepers awake in 10 towns in the United States and there are 10 San Bernardinos? What if 100?

179 comments:

This deserves serious debate. Let's let our political leaders defend the greatness of Islam throughout the world. Let's start with Saudi Arabia and discuss what Wahhabism is. We can work our way down the list to maybe Turkey, which is the best of these shit countries.

I think Trump is right but he needs to add caveats. See my list below:

* temporarily halt refugee/immigration from all ‘problem’ Muslim countries* put mosques with hardcore stance on alert* stop the Saudis from pouring money into Muslim communities for religious purposes* put Saudis and Turks on notice in other areas* build a world coalition including Russia/Egypt to fight the barbarians* dry up money sources for the barbarians

If I could come up with that list, Trump or Hillary should be able to do it with ease. What would stop them is if they are part of the problem. Unfortunately Hillary is tied to all of the old players including Obama. Maybe somebody like Trump could start from scratch and redefine America’s place/role in the world. But I may also be naive.

The Pew Survey numbers are what's truly shocking and that's what the debate should be about.

Years ago I worked at a law firm with a young Muslim woman from Egypt. She used to talk and talk about the benefits of Sharia law. Eventually, she quit the job and quit the States to move back to Egypt to be closer to her beloved Sharia law.

Garage, I don't think the extent of The Donald's base is apparent yet. It may be a lot bigger than you would wish.

Do you find the results of the Pew poll comforting? Do you discount its accuracy, or just think it's ok to have a large affinity group in our country, 25% of whose members endorse violence against other Americans who are not of their religion?

Wow. Mr. T. has just set the match. What are the odds of the government acing, and soon? "Before Christmas? And demonstrate that he has the same command of the agenda with Congress and the Administration as he does with the MSM? Who needs a general election when you can command change just by speaking truth to power?

"overheard at the U.N.. "well, can Pew be believed? They're the spawn of a wicked oil company and a bigger menace than those tobacco farmers ever were. If there's any doubt the U.S. should send cruise ships to pick up these refugees, they have too few people on too many acres as is." "Please ignore our position on this matter, except for this one thing we really do believe in the precautionary principle. And rain dancing."

Outrage! from the usual suspects. It's gonna kill him like building a wall, shipping all illegal aliens back, questioning the valor of McCain, thousands of Muslims celebrating in NJ. Only stupid Right Wing Crazies will buy into this. Sophisticates like us think that importing Muslims is a great idea and will improve our lives, make America more diverse and halt global warming. Because all cultures are the same. Circumcision and clitorectomies are equally.

Trump is being deceptive. The Pew polling data is of Muslims everywhere other than the Americas. The CSP poll did not have a sound methodology.However, I am suspicious that more in-depth polling of North American Muslims and especially 1st and 2nd generation Muslim immigrants has not been done (or at least I couldn't find any polls like that).I reluctantly conclude that the people who might be expected to perform such polling are afraid to do so.

And to make it even more outrageous, Trump's people were asked to clarify, would this mean only immigrants? No, it would mean tourists, business people, even American Muslims visiting abroad would be denied entrance to the US. I'd like to know if this ban on Muslms entering the US would extend to Muslim military members coming home from deployment or service on foreign American military bases. Insanity.

My guess is that Tromp's poll numbers will skyrocket. What's the "reasonable" alternative? Let in only Christians? You can't know they're really Christian. "Vet" everyone before you let them in? That's what Obama says he'll do. This is no lose for Tromp, who was never going to get the bleeding heart vote anyway.

Polls consistently say that 20+% of American Muslims believe that imposition of Sharia law by violent means (jihad) is justified, with 50% preferring Sharia law to the constitution. One estimate is that there are 5 million Muslims here currently. So we have 1,000,000 Muslims here that are OK with jihad?

Included in the political are the results of the litmus test to determine who is capable of only hating, not figuring out the complexities of the sources and forging, usually by shouting "hater bigot!" at Trump neutral observers but sometimes by saying San Bernardino victims deserved it for being such hateful bigots Stasi-wise.

"It's the motion of the ocean" they say.

On a side note, let's give Obama credit for allowing the possibility that the Prophet has such a negative record the future belongs to those who speak only the Truth, no slander needed.

If you pause to think about it, Trump's new position, as shocking as it sounds at first, is actually much less radical than the bizarre policies that Obama has already implemented.

It a bit rich to hear Obama say "That's not who we are" when he's been working nonstop for seven years to change who we are.

Initially, I thought Trump had gone a bridge too far with this idea. But after San Bernadino, after reading his press releases, I expect he'll quickly get majority support for it. After all, even Chuck Shumer floated the idea of a pause in immigration after Paris, and this is much more serious. The definition of "center" has just taken a giant step to the right.

We know our bureaucrats can't spot a jihadi on a fiancee visa. We know that having a good paying government job, with great medical and retirement benefits, and having a wife and a kid, will not stop a muslim from going on a murderous rampage against Americans, against the employees he worked with for five years! Not all muslims are jihadis, but we now know with certainty that we will never be able to tell the good ones from the bad ones.

Just as the Israelis were finally forced to build a wall to reduce the terrorism, we will have to take comparable measures.

The "moderate" muslims have had 14 years to get with the program, and they have not. For all our ridiculous hypersensitivity to muslim worries for 14 years, we have been repaid with murder, not with cooperation.

How many American-Muslims have committed terrorist acts against the united states?

How many Muslim Americans support the commission of terrorist acts against the United States?

How broad is support for sharia law among Muslim Americans?

I agree with the post above that advocates a temporary halt to ALL immigration until we sort out the problem of our porous southern border and having millions of illegal aliens living in the U.S. This is my country and the rest of the world does not have an alienable right to move into it.

Yeah! We should round up all the muslims and confine them all to ghettos. We could force them all to wear a crescent moon and star on their sleeves so that they might be easily identified as muslims. Although it seems like there might be a more final solution. hmm...

Muslim minority country muslims would be used to living under non-shariah systems and presumably would be okay.

Indian Muslims (second or third largest number in the world) do quite well. I fear the day they would be corrupted by those Saudi Mfers and start killing everyone. And pray that it will never happen.

From an article by MJ Akbar entitled "A Flawed Idea":"On the day that terrorists attacked Sri Lankan cricketers, I had a previously arranged speaking engagement at a university in Delhi before largely Muslim students. I began with the suggestion that every Indian Muslim should offer a special, public prayer of thanks to the Almighty Allah for His extraordinary benevolence - for the mercy He had shown by preventing us from ending up in Pakistan in 1947. The suggestion was received with startled amusement, instinctive applause and a palpable sense of sheer relief."

Why are Syrians coming here in droves? I think the answer is obvious; it's because Syria is a shithole. Why are Iraqis and Pakistanis coming here in droves? Same reason. Shitholes. Why are Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan shitholes? Because they're full of Syrians, Iraqis, and Pakistanis, that's why. These people have beavering away for more than a thousand years making thorough shitholes of every place they set foot. Now they want to come here and do us the favor as well.

If Iraq and Texas were to exchange populations tomorrow -- just imagine every Texan from babes in arms to doddering geezers lingering at death's door just up sticks and moves to Baghdad, Kerbala, whatever... and every Iraqi, be he Sunni, Sh'ia, Kurd, or Chaldean, moves to Texas. In ten years Texas would be a stinking shithole indistinguishable from Iraq right now, at this minute, except for that beautiful coastline. During that same ten years Iraq with it new population of Texans would be -- well, not Texas redux, one must admit -- it would be Palm Springs East; that's what it would be.

Syria and Iraq weren't always shitholes, so what happened? Islam, that's what happened. Before they were both capitals of commerce and culture. Then the Arab hordes descended on them, forced them to adopt their hotheaded religion and their guttural goatspeak language (these regions had been Greek-speaking for 800 years or more) and the shitification started to set in immediately.

Pakistan has always been a shithole, so maybe the Pakistanis are not entirely at fault. Then again maybe they are, because during the Raj the Brits showed that the shititude could be mitigated with a generous helpings of cool heads and cold steel. But when they left the shit came back like a spring tide.

America has got a lot of shit to clean up, just look at Detroit... hell, never mind Detroit, look at Harvard! We need to import shit about as much as Newcastle needs imported coal. Keep 'em out, say I.

But Trumps doing the assholes a favor. All Sharia Guys need to go over to Mecca once and walk around the black meteorite kept in the in the rock outhouse called the Idol House and filled with 18 idols until Muhammed decided his new fake religion would be be Monotheistic to match the Hebrews, and so he threw them all away but Al the god meterorite.

Trump is so far inside the OODA Loop of the Left and the other Republican candidates that they do not know how to react. Further, he has moved the Overton Window mightily away from Left and their precepts of Cultural Marxism.

Please define American-Muslims. Do you mean those born here or who became citizens? Also, are we just talking successful terrorists acts, or are we including those arrested and convicted of plotting terrorism. The latter list is long but distinguished.

Completed acts:

Born here: Abdulhakim Muhammed (Arkansas recruiting center shooter); Major Hassan and Syed Farouk. Al-Awlaki helped radicalize Hassan and others while he was the imam of the Falls Church Virginia Mosque. Should we hold him responsible as a terrorist for helping to radicalize Hassan?

Wait, what? He's worried about Muslims? Why, whatever for? They've been nothing but sweethearts ever since they swarmed out of the desert, killing and marauding and raping and pillaging from Indonesia to Spain and Africa to Vienna, and all parts in between. They've never done anybody any harm. Even today, all this killing all over the world, that's not Muslims! Is it? What is this guy talking about? I don't understand.

Sometimes one just has to take them at their word. It's clear and has been for a long time. The same was said to Jefferson and Adams by the Ambassador of Tripoli. They were working out the Danegeld, I think. Which explains to the shores of Tripoli.

garage mahal: "A good 25% of this country can identify with a fascist like Trump. They've been waiting a long time for a Trump."

It appears garage has sufficiently recovered from the embarrassment of praising the "courage" of Hamas terrorists who hide push children into gunfire while trashing the military service of his own father to begin commenting again.

Am I a fan of Trump's bloviating on the nature of the Muslim world & what the US should do about it? No, I am not.

But, I'm even less a fan of the Muslim world's clueless & incompetent response to an ideology in their midst that not only makes them the world's enemy, it also kills more Muslims than infidels.

It's not just about about Muslims making war on the Salafists. It's about the Islamic world developing a theological/juridical counterweight to the Salafist doctrine, which it just seems unable to do.

Ignore Donald Trump. But listen to President Sisi of Egypt tell the assembled scholars at Al-Azhar University that if they don't get their shit together & soon, the rest of the world will clean up their dreck, and it won't happen nicely, either.

What does 'Put mosques on alert' even mean, and how can it be reconciled with the Constitution. I really do not want the Govt poking its nose into any Church/Mosque messaging.

MadisonMan, you know I like your comments but I will laugh at this and call it first world problems.

Do you know what would happen in India if its people and the government did not block Saudi influence on its Muslims? But I do hear that the strain of Muslims in India is different from the Saudis, oh thank the Allah. But still I am pretty sure they would like to pour money and set up a few madrasas like they do/did in neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh. And, how are those countries doing?

But to answer your question "What does 'Put (hardcore) mosques on alert' even mean", a more practical solution here would be to put FBI on their trails. And let them know someone is watching.

Blogger garage mahal said...A good 25% of this country can identify with a fascist like Trump. They've been waiting a long time for a Trump.

“The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.”― Tom Wolfe

Trump's positions (but not his bombast) would have been completely unremarkable two decades ago.

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."Benito MussoliniThat sounds like Obama, not Trump. It's hard to see any of Trump's supporters agreeing with fascism, as defined by people other than lunatic leftists. Liberals always confuse patriotism and nationalism with fascism. That is one of the reasons they cannot be trusted to run the country, and why liberal leadership is so unpopular. What are Obama's approval numbers? low to mid 40s?

The problem is four-fold. One, several thousand years of prejudice in the Islamic tradition. Two, the never ending sectarian strife in the Islamic world. Three, Obama's wars in Africa, Middle East, and Eurasia, and the resistance to directly address the fallout, including millions of dead and displaced Muslims, Christians, etc., and the opportunistic refugee crisis. And four, immigration policies that exceed the rate of assimilation and integration, and have an anti-native outlook.

What a laugh... garage and garagette are calling Trump's position fascist. Yet weren't they also pushing for removing rights from US citizens simply because the government put names on a list? So, logically, all the gov't has to do is put any Muslim's name on a list and pick a right or two to remove and everything is A-OK!

If Obama won't stop illegals from coming in, especially from war torn areas, then YES, ban them all. Right now we are getting in unvetted illegals from South America with some actually coming from Syria. If Obama wont' stop it... then get congress to stop them all.

Ain't gonna fly. But immigration policy should fit American interests and values. Did it fit our interests and values to import tens of thousands Somalis to Minnesota? Will it fit our interests to import tens of thousands more from Syria? The Donald will make Rubio/Cruz look tough-but-reasonalbe.

"The 'moderate' muslims have had 14 years to get with the program, and they have not. For all our ridiculous hypersensitivity to muslim worries for 14 years, we have been repaid with murder, not with cooperation."

This is red meat for the Althouse Hillbillies. I would hope Ann you will at some point express how morally and constitutionally wrong this is. This is pure ugliness and is an affront to every principle that our country is built upon.

Trump is a hillbilly clown. Unfortunately the GOP core is now populated by these intellectual midgets.

The main goal of US immigration policy should be to recruit potential immigrants who will strengthen the US economy and culture, while building better lives for themselves and their families, all without placing undue burdens or costs on America and the American taxpayer. If Hindus from India, Christians from the Philippines and Buddhists from Burma fit that bill better than Muslims from Pakistan, Indonesia and Sudan, then why shouldn't the Hindus, Christians and Buddhists be admitted first (or only)? We're not talking about some sort of "White America" policy here - just finding folks who might be a better cultural fit.

Trump is saying what everyone I've talked to has been quietly saying for a while now. Why are we letting in people that want to kill us? So we look kind and non racist? I am now fed up with all of that crap. I don't care if you think I'm a bigot. I want to live and I want my children to live in a world without Muslims. There are no moderate muslims, if there were any around, they would be on every news show, screaming about how these murderers are stealing their religion. We hear nothing. Crickets. If it's only a small minority of muslims causing this problem, with 1.8 billion muslims in the world, take that small minority down. Take your religion back. Nope, not going to happen. So, I say good for Trump. Leave them in their shitholes that they have made, let them kill each other, then we will take on the winners. Send the ones here back to their shitholes, I don't care if they are brain surgeons or bakers. Maybe they can clean up the shitholes and make something out of it. Get them out of here, because, we all know, all it takes is two maniacs to kill us all.

The left is so worried about what a bunnch of foreign Muslims and their apologists say, but just a few days ago they voted to basically repeal our constitutional due process rights to prevent us from exercising our 2nd amendment rights. And they think Trump is a radical.

Sharia law states explicitly that Muslims should kill infidels that do not submit to Islam.

Sharia law states explicitly that women are property to be married off for a bride price.

Sharia law states explicitly that a woman who has sex with anyone but her husband is an adulterer and must be killed.

Sharia law states explicitly that apostates are to be killed.

Sharia law states explicitly that gay people are an abomination and must be killed.

Sharia law allows for the creation and "use" of pocket boys. If you don't know what a pocket boy is it is just as disgusting as the worst thing you could possibly imagine.

90+% of Muslims will state that Israel does not have a right to exist.

Sharia law is followed everywhere Islam is the dominant cultural force. Gay people, apostates, adulterous women et al. are killed everyday because of Sharia Law. Islam and Sharia Law are the most illiberal cultural forces in the world. If Muslims got the chance and were the dominant culture >50% of them would stone Alhouse's son and several of my gay friends to death. They would beat women until they wore "appropriate" clothing. Women would no longer be allowed to leave the house without an escort.

You can call me a bigot and a racist until the cows come home. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. Women in Afghanistan don't get to leave their compounds alone. Most of them are beaten. I have seen what they want to do to you here. One of the reasons I fought was because I didn't think my gay friends should be stoned to death.

I do not accept any of the tenets of Sharia Law. Just because a bunch of people follow a religion does not make it right. If I made a religion that gave me the authority to kill people who did not follow it I would expect skepticism from the infidels. Anyone who thinks the religion of Islam should get a pass is retarded or evil.

Amanda said..."And to make it even more outrageous, Trump's people were asked to clarify, would this mean only immigrants? No, it would mean tourists, business people, even American Muslims visiting abroad would be denied entrance to the US. I'd like to know if this ban on Muslms entering the US would extend to Muslim military members coming home from deployment or service on foreign American military bases. Insanity."

This is going to be hard for you. Try to take a second and see this from someone else's point of view. Mine for example.

Muslims believe in sharia law. Sharia law explicitly states that infidels that do not submit should be killed. I am an infidel and I don't wish to submit. That means if they get a chance Muslims will treat me like they treat minorities in their countries. Note the mass beheadings of christians throughout the Muslims world. I do not want a bunch of people coming here who believe in Sharia law and ergo want to kill me and will if they get a chance. I was in the Army and went to Iraq and Afghanistan where I saw first hand how Muslims organize their society.

If you want to explain your paradigm I would welcome it. But I will take a stab at it. You likely have never left this country/gone to a country not occupied/protected by the US armed forces. You have had to deal with few Muslims. You have never challenged them on their beliefs. You are woefully ignorant of what Muslims say, believe and do in countries where Islam is the dominant cultural force. You are either in college or recently graduated and this is your first foray outside of the liberal bubble sites. You haven't actually discussed any of these issues with someone who actually disagrees with you. You are not in a Business or STEM major.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Discussing these issues works better as you understand the paradigms of both sides better.

It's very interesting that alone among the oil-rich states only Qatar is accepting migrants from the Daesh "caliphate", and they're being very selective -- no Sh'ia, no Yazdis, no Kurds, and no Christians.

I see that Huma Abedin, "a pound Muslim" has condemned Trump. Dick Cheney has also weighted in with condemnatory rhetoric. This dichotomy presents a severe dilemma for Left which they hope none of us yokels will notice.

I think Trump has a good point and it should be supplemented by evicting all the illegal immigrants. Like immigrant Muslims, most of the illegals take jobs that are under the table (no taxes paid) and get welfare benefits. We dont need more drains on society and certainly not drains that go nuts and slaughter innocents like the Muslims do all too often.

If he had said "halt all immigration until we improve our screening system" or even "halt all immigration from countries that have inadequate screening until our own system has been fixed" those would be arguable but plausible points worth debating. But specifically picking Muslims makes no sense, as there's no clear test who as Muslim is (helpful hint--if a terrorist wants to get into this country to do mayhem, they're probably pretty good at lying about being Muslim if that's what it takes to pass our screening). This is just a cheap attempt to cash in on very real concerns about terrorism while adding typically Trumpian nonsense. Not that this "proposal" would survive any federal court.

And how much should we trust any poll cited by Trump? Are these as good as the ones telling us he would be getting 25% of "the blacks", when the GOP hasn't topped 17% since 1976?

First, I have to say I am also suspicious of the Poll results Trump cites. I'd like to see the actual data.

We need to get our polls straight. There are two polls.

One poll is the CSP poll which is bogus and should be ignored. Trump screwed up by citing this poll. The CSP purports to be a poll of Muslims inside the USA. It is pure bullshit.

The other poll, the Pew poll, is of Muslims outside AND inside the USA. It is legitimate. Trump’s press release mentions the Pew poll but apparently only cites results from the CSP poll – a tactical mistake, I think.

Trump's ban would extend to Muslim tourists and Muslim business people from any country in the world. So a German Muslim businessman would be denied entrance to the US to conduct business for a large multinational corporation?

From that excerpt, I don't see where he's calling for a halt to Islamic immigration. He's calling for an end to immigration for people who believe in Sharia law. That's not irrational even if it is unenforceable.

I'm suggesting that we do not know the future and that one can imagine something happening — something that perfectly easily could happen — that would cause most Americans to say Donald Trump was right. And he, then, will be able to say I was right. But everyone is disagreeing with him now.

American immigration policy, like all countries immigration policies, should be designed based upon what is best for Americans (I know that's hard to believe), not what is best for various non-Americans.

What benefit is there to the United States of America to have Muslims immigrate here? Even putting aside the many thousands of them who would be happy to see many of us infidels slaughtered, what is the benefit to us of having them here? What added features do they bring that offset their obvious (violent and non-violent) bugs?

Trump is a master troll. He makes Obama, who has made trolling into an art form, look like an amateur.

Maybe. What I see is that he is (or his people are) a genius about detecting this sort of thing. PC says we have to love the Religion of Peace. Trump points out that they have been killing infidels or 1 1/3 millennia, and have now snuck in here, and are trying to intimidate us by killing us. No doubt, the two jihadists the other day would have considered beheading some of the people they killed if they had had more time - beheading makes their killing that much worse.

Trump is, essentially, asking the question: WTF are we allowing so many Muslims into our country, esp. from places like Syria where we can't vet them, and where ISIS is slipping their terrorists into the flow of immigrants? We all (except maybe Garbage here) know that this is wrong, bad for the country, etc. Why not limit those entering this country to those who want to assimilate? Who don't want to behead us, stone our adulterous women and gay guys?

Trump is finding these weaknesses in PC, where the left, starting in the White House, is being idiotic, and acting against the wishes of large majorities in this country, and is then exploiting them. Sure, he takes contentious and controversial positions, but most often doesn't say anything that a majority in this country are not saying all ready. Who in their right minds wants a bunch of unvetted and unvetable Syrian Muslims to be let into this country? Those on the left who do, mostly aren't planning anywhere near them. Trump sees opportunities here to win votes, and steer the debate and is taking them.

I find it interesting though that only Ted Cruz seems to be following Trump's lead here. Cruz is also arguably the smartest guy running (though Dr. Carson maybe on a similar level). The rest of the candidates, by condemning Trump, are showing themselves subservient to the establishment, which, these days, means following the lead of their social betters - the Democrats running this country (including the elite MSM).

Donald Trump advocates a complete ban on the immigration of one religious group, which is a natural extension of the right's blanket condemnation of everyone in that religious group. Meanwhile the left is advocating that we deny people a constitutional right based on their inclusion on a secret watch list.

"Are you suggesting that magic dirt is the only explanation for why the sort of people who want to come and live in America might have different attitudes and values than the sort of people who do not?"

Bless your bleeding heart. The point is we can't scan their brains, therefore we can't allow them without accepting risk. Therefore we do not do it.

It's OUR country. Not their country. The have no right to immigrate whatsoever.

Use common sense. Killers here are almost always lone wolves because of the risk others would turn them in.

Islamists work in groups, because they clearly have more of a group identity with terror and don't turn each other in.

Common sense. Time for America to be first again. I don't care if it hurts the feelings of some Pakistani who wants to come.

It is clear that establishment Republicans and Democrats are now united against Trump. It’s not surprising since there’s very little real difference between the two groups. The establishment GOP types would rather see a Democrat win than have Trump in the Whitehouse.

I’ve made up my mind. I will vote for Trump any chance I get. He’s my preference now. I will vote for ANY GOP candidate the GOP finally ends up with but Trump is now my preference.

I want to see how having a POTUS that is not bought and paid for by big donors will work out.

I want a POTUS who will not try to disarm citizens who want to protect themselves and who respects the 2nd Amendment.

I like Trump’s intention of strengthening the military.

I want a POTUS who will destroy ISIS ruthlessly without a second thought about hurting the feelings of anyone.

I like Trump’s attitude toward vets and the VA.

I want Muslim entry into the USA to be paused – especially the refugees but others too.

I want my POTUS to be an unabashed capitalist.

I want a POTUS who knows what it’s like to run a business.

I want my POTUS to have experience outside academia and outside DC.

I want a POTUS who will keep Gitmo open forever and fill it with more and more terrorists until it is almost overflowing.

I want my POTUS to be unashamedly and wholeheartedly patriotic. I want my POTUS to display patriotism at every public opportunity. The nation should know that my POTUS loves America as it is and as it has been.

I want a POTUS who will NEVER apologize for America. Especially overseas in front of a crowd of foreigners.

I'm afraid that far more Americans will have to be slaughtered in the name of Islam before the majority of Americans take action to stop it.

This is also one of my greatest fears. People murdered because our current POTUS is an idiot. If they ever get their hands on a dirty bomb, an EMP weapon or some sarin they could do enormous damage. There’s no sense of urgency from the Whitehouse.

"Are you implying there's some sort of natural "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" filter that keeps people with bad ideas out of the US? It didn't seem to work on these people."

No, obviously dangerous people can still try to get in (just like some dangerous people can be home-grown). But the subset of people coming from a given country to the U.S. is likely different from the general population of that origin country, simply because that subset is made up of those who wish to leave the origin country.

None of that is to say we should drop our guard and assume everyone trying to get to the U.S. is just peachy--but assuming everyone trying to get in is trying to do us harm makes as little sense.

Trump - trolling the Overton window to the right, one "outrage" at a time.

In a public square with the adults in control, discussions of restrictions on Muslim immigration would not provoke hysteria. Instead, we live under conditions where the perimeters of acceptable discourse are patrolled by overgrown psychotic toddlers who think that "that's not who were are!" and "muh non-discrimination" constitute definitive and irrefutable policy positions.

Large-scale Muslim immigration into Western countries has been hugely problematic, and the situation is not improving, to understate the point. Why on earth wouldn't we re-consider the prudence of allowing more Muslims to immigrate?

That we don't (yet?) have problems on the scale of Europe doesn't justify refusing to consider that there may be lessons pertinent to ourselves in the their experience. Only in Clown World do we consider empirically-derived data about the consequences of a given policy to be irrelevant to the continuation of said policy. Only in Clown World is ramped-up haranguing about "Islamophobia", and demands for increased Muslim immigration the default response to atrocities committed by Muslims in the West.

In fact, there's a whole lot of issues implicit in Trump's crazy talk re immigration that need to be salvaged from the screaming toddlers and put back on the table for adult discussion. It's a wonderful irony that The Clown is the one letting the adults back into the room, after years of the "serious" people letting the toddlers ruin the debate among adults.

Grackle's citation of Pew statistics clearly establishes that a higher concentration of jihadi sympathizers exists outside the US than inside. There is no reason "why" established. Looking at the date in purely physical terms, it makes perfect sense to block further influx of the higher concentration.

At least in my early days here in this country, immigration used to be about bringing skilled workers. Maybe they should go back to that policy of attracting the best and the brightest. Academia and higher ed are a mess, the political system is a mess, something is not working.

I see the other GOP candidates are falling into line with the Democrats and the MSM in condemning Trump. They better hope it doesn’t backfire on them. I think it may. Fiorina, once my favorite, has followed suit. For shame, Carly.

It looks like no matter whether Trump wins the primaries the establishment GOP will deny him the nomination at the convention. If that happens Hillary will win. O the self-destructive tendencies of the GOP! Someone plays by the rules and wins under their own rules but they will stop him anyway because he would upset their apple cart. Will they ever learn? Do they even want to?

The EPA says some chemicals are dangerous so we won't allow any chemicals into the United States until it is proved that they are safe. Most people agree with this. Certainly, lefties do.

The FDA says some drugs are dangerous so we won't allow any drugs into the United States until it is proved that they are safe. Most people agree with this. Certainly, lefties do.

Large, important parts of the left hold similar attitudes about GMOs and nuclear reactors (as do significant parts of the center and right).

The Precautionary Principle, the idea that anything different should have to prove it is safe before it is allowed, now has a large positive literature among academics and activists, most of whom are on the left.

How ironic that Donald Trump is considered right-wing for applying the same logic to Muslims.

Easy to say it's dumb, or nonsense, but where is the argument supporting the proposition that allowing an invasion of Muslims in the US is good for the US? What are the benefits that we are getting that justifies the real danger they pose, and the other problems their non-Western Civilization creates? Go ahead. Explain it.

Blogger Amanda said...Trump's ban would extend to Muslim tourists and Muslim business people from any country in the world. So a German Muslim businessman would be denied entrance to the US to conduct business for a large multinational corporation?

Always a good position to take, garagette; making America safe for German businessmen.

And, that's some smart thinking you folks implying that Trump wants to institute another Holocaust (you know, like the ones the left-wingers in Germany created) because not letting people into your country is the same as sending them to extermination camps.But then, maybe you are right. Ever read about the SS St. Louis? FDR sending hundreds of Jews to die in a concentration camp.

As others and I have pointed out: Just put them on a list and then all is OK! you've said so yourselves.

You idiots are totally unaware of the basic contradictions in your positions. Too busy clutching your pearls to think straight?

Brando: None of that is to say we should drop our guard and assume everyone trying to get to the U.S. is just peachy--but assuming everyone trying to get in is trying to do us harm makes as little sense.

I think we ought to have a more exacting immigration filter than "wants to come here and won't do us any harm". In fact, I think it ought to be more exacting than "wants to come here, won't do us any harm, and will be a net tax-payer".

It's a fond libertarian fantasy that anyone with the desire and the gumption to up sticks and make it to America is ipso facto a good fit for American culture, and automatically signs on to American values. They might be, but the above isn't evidence that they are.

Nor is not being a threat, being a good person, evidence of that. There are millions of fine human beings in the world, many of whom would like to live in a nice Western country, who really don't belong here. It's blind arrogance to believe that all good human beings sign on to our values, 'cause they're universal! They're not.

Cheney:Well, I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims, just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and believe in. I mean, religious freedom has been a very important part of our history and where we came from. A lot of people, my ancestors got here, because they were Puritans. There wasn’t anybody here then when they came, but it’s a mistaken notion. It’s a serious problem, this refugee problem is."

By my analogy, Trump wouldn't be TNT but rather more oil, or bacon grease. To me, we have a number of major problems (security and immigration only two of them) that have long been buck-passed, and now this guy comes in with "solutions" that apparently sound good because they "piss off all the right people" which is entertaining and all, but does not suggest anything close to a person with a plausible solution.

And hey, maybe the pessimists are right and there is no plausible solution, and we'd best just sit back and watch it all burn. But I can't cheerlead that sort of thing.

"I think we ought to have a more exacting immigration filter than "wants to come here and won't do us any harm". In fact, I think it ought to be more exacting than "wants to come here, won't do us any harm, and will be a net tax-payer"."

Well, that's a separate topic, but as to assessing security threats the primary thing we need to be looking at is the likelihood of a given person doing harm. Whether that person (if deemed no threat) should still be allowed to immigrate is the next question, but I have no confidence we've successfully answered the first. Right now it seems to be one side saying "of course there are no threats, they're all decent good refugees!" and Trump saying "no Muslims!" as if that will foil devious terrorists who will do just about anything but lie to immigration authorities.

"It's blind arrogance to believe that all good human beings sign on to our values, 'cause they're universal! They're not."

Not all "good" human beings sign on to our values, and not even all people wanting to come here in good faith sign on to them--nor has that ever been the case. But the sort of people wanting to leave a country (and having the wherewithal to do so) are generally different from those wanting to stay. The average Cuban refugee is going to be very different from the average Cuban in Cuba, and that would be the case with any other country. That doesn't mean that every one of those refugees loves America, or even that a majority of those refugees would be bringing different values to America. But the fact that they want to come here says something about them that is different from those they left behind.

OK, lets use Grackle's more conservative numbers : 8% of 5,000,000 US Muslims are OK with jihadi suicide bombers to 'defend Islam'. That means 400,000 American Muslims feel this way. I doubt all 400,000 would actually carry out a suicide attack, but these might be some of the same people who aided and abetted the San Bernadino and 911 murderers.

Everything that's being written about muslims in this thread could have been written about Italians 120 years ago or Irish 150 years ago or Germans 180 years ago or the English 200 to 300 years ago. All were immigrants coming from strife-ridden countries; many of them had weird religious beliefs; some of them were political radicals.

It's interesting that now Trump has backtracked away from his original proposal in which he said ALL Muslims would not be allowed entry into the US. As of this morning he says he would make exceptions for military members, US citizens, those entering for sports events (lol!) and possibly those entering for business purposes. Hahahahahahaaah! Ya can't make this stuff up folks, it's the best reality show on TV. Republcans created this monster, now it'll be up to them to kill it.

Know what my fear is? Just like with Obama in 2012 - we'd elect the wrong one, and the predictions of the other would blow up in our face. Romney warned about the spread of ISIS. Obama, armed with what we now know was mostly cooked intel, downplayed it. Romney warned about Russia. Obama accused him of refighting the Cold War. Look what's happened since.

If we elect Hillary, and in 2017 there is a massive terrorist attack, or a bunch of coordinated small ones (10 San Bernardinos), I think we're in worse shape than if we act now to adopt some restrictions on who can enter based on what countries have adequate internal data resources to allow for a truly thorough background check, and also maybe screen for skills we need. Failing that, just stop everything - immigration moratorium for two years with the option to extend. Does a sovereign nation not have the right to decide who can enter, and when?

The thing that keeps me from going totally wild for Trump (though he still has my current support), is his tendency to overstate and exaggerate. Yes, plenty of Muslims were cheering all over the world, and the U.S., on 9/11. Were there 'thousands' in New Jersey? Probably not. If he'd said "dozens", or maybe even "hundreds", he would have gotten away with less controversy, because news reports at the time confirmed the impression of multiple groups cheering and enjoying the destruction. Same for his recent statement. Don't single out Muslims - say ALL immigration, or at least restrict immigration from countries with solid data infrastructure and competent police.

Sharia law is here, in its nascent form, and gestating with the help of law schools, since it is the subject du jour to get you published. Read this Seton Hall (catholic?) L Rev article by a Stanford prof, advocating for the creeping inclusion of Sharia in the US. The excerpt here is just to show that it is here, the rest of the article (as far as I have skimmed) is a nothing but an assertion that it is proper and legal to allow it, and barriers proposed to limit it are an unconstitutional restriction of "religious freedom."

" American courts do not, and could not, apply the criminal-law provisions of sharia. [well that's comforting!] They do, however, consider sharia in civil disputes—at least indirectly. Courts, for example, enforce contract terms requiring certain disputes be resolved through sharia-based arbitration. They also address sharia in domestic-relations cases, [great, all those decades of American women fighting for justice and equality right down the drain!] including those arising from relationships among Muslims in this country as well as those begun, and perhaps previously adjudged, overseas (i.e., in Muslim countries). And courts defer to Muslim officials when reviewing clerical or other intra-faith disputes."

Article at http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1539&context=shlr.

So the average Cuban tire-paddler is different than the average Cuban in Havana? Ok, I would agree this is correct, and not just in the geographic sense. But what is the difference, and is it all the same difference? Surely the guy who floated over has courage and drive, but what if his lifelong ambition is to sell drugs? While the guy left behind in the slums of Havana would make a really great television repairman, if only he knew what a television was?

Blogger Henry said...Everything that's being written about muslims in this thread could have been written about Italians 120 years ago or Irish 150 years ago or Germans 180 years ago or the English 200 to 300 years ago. All were immigrants coming from strife-ridden countries; many of them had weird religious beliefs; some of them were political radicals.

That's right, Henry. There was a big problem with all of those peoples committing terrorist acts, forcing others to live under their own legal code, and killing others because they are of different religion.

Garagette:I thought that there must be a limit to your stupidity. I was wrong.

Henry: Everything that's being written about muslims in this thread could have been written about Italians 120 years ago or Irish 150 years ago or Germans 180 years ago or the English 200 to 300 years ago. All were immigrants coming from strife-ridden countries; many of them had weird religious beliefs;

That's such an amazingly profound insight, I'm astonished that it's never been adduced before in a discussion about immigration. Who knew that there are similarities throughout history in the way people talk about immigrants? ("Everything that's been written?" Really? All exactly the same, no new or different observations added at all?)

Then I guess we needn't tax our puzzlers about any meaningful distinctions that might exist between European Christians and conditions 120, 150, 200, or 300 years ago, and Muslims from different civilizational traditions today. After all, Europeans often said (and say) some of the same things about past and present intra-European immigrants in their midst that they say about Muslims now, and we all know that the only reason Frenchmen seem to be evincing more annoyance with North Africans than Poles is because, well, we all know they're Nazi bigots under the skin who just lack our assimilational juju.)

The above is moot anyway, since your great-grands and mine were immigrants, too, so that settles that. (I don't know what it settles or why, but I'm assured it does.) And they didn't come from Siberia 10,000 years ago so shut up.

...some of them were political radicals.

Yes, they were. And their sometimes bloody antics were one of the reasons for the rise in anti-immigrant sentiment that resulted in the heavily restrictionist and highly discriminatory 1924 immigration act. Are you adducing this fact in support of implementing similar restrictions today?

What he says makes perfect sense in a world where physical homeland security is your predominant objective. Stop the flow, get a screening process that is effective and then start again. But that is not the world we live in. That will change if the kind of attacks Althouse hypothesizes occur. So rather than losing the election with this position, Trump could be winning it.

In the meantime, we have a test case that will tell whether allowing unimpeded immigration from Muslim countries is a significant danger. It's called Germany. They have accepted one million in the last 12 months, including half a million Syrians. We should find out in near to intermediate future whether that is consequential.

No, obviously dangerous people can still try to get in (just like some dangerous people can be home-grown). But the subset of people coming from a given country to the U.S. is likely different from the general population of that origin country, simply because that subset is made up of those who wish to leave the origin country.

But, their desire to come here does not necessarily correlate with a desire to CHANGE. How many Northerners move down South and then vote for politicians to do the same things that ruined the place they originally came from? How many Mexicans come here and elect people who are as corrupt as their pols back home?

It's interesting that now Trump has backtracked away from his original proposal in which he said ALL Muslims would not be allowed entry into the US. As of this morning he says he would make exceptions for military members, US citizens, those entering for sports events (lol!) and possibly those entering for business purposes. Hahahahahahaaah! Ya can't make this stuff up folks, it's the best reality show on TV. Republcans created this monster, now it'll be up to them to kill it.

Do you have any clue how negotiation works? Make the extreme position the starting point and go down to your preferred position.

The thing that keeps me from going totally wild for Trump (though he still has my current support), is his tendency to overstate and exaggerate. Yes, plenty of Muslims were cheering all over the world, and the U.S., on 9/11. Were there 'thousands' in New Jersey? Probably not. If he'd said "dozens", or maybe even "hundreds", he would have gotten away with less controversy, because news reports at the time confirmed the impression of multiple groups cheering and enjoying the destruction. Same for his recent statement. Don't single out Muslims - say ALL immigration, or at least restrict immigration from countries with solid data infrastructure and competent police.

Before he said anything, the press ignored that ANY celebrated. To "beat" him, they had to admit that some did, in fact, celebrate the downing of the WTC. I don't see how Trump "lost" there.

Remember when we let in hundreds of thousands of Italians early last century and never had any problems with The Mafia?

Yeah. A recognition that there are significant downsides to policies needs to be addressed and the GOP establishment, Democrats, and Libertarians seem uninterested in the reality that open borders isn't a panacea.

Also, keep in mind --- Trump's proposal to ask immigrants if they're Muslim is "horrendous"...but the Democrat's proposal to limit the rights of Americans due to a list that is controlled by the executive is peachy.

Can a Prog explain why Trump is horrible and Obama and the Dems proposal is not?

"But the sort of people wanting to leave a country (and having the wherewithal to do so) are generally different from those wanting to stay."

Good lord, you are painfully clueless.

Lots of Muslims want to leave, to jihad too. How about those millions of noble immigrants causing utter chaos in Europe? Seen Swedish rape stats lately, Brando? But they wanted to leave the middle east which means they're Good Peoples, right?

How do we brain scan and determine who is who? Unbelievable, how you can just handwave your fantasy reality into pretend existence.

As for Italian, German immigration, we had plenty of problems with that and they aren't a 20th as barbaric as Muslim countries. They were fellow civilized europeans, although different from us.

Immigrants from the sandbox don't even know how to use toilets. In Europe they have to put signs saying "Do not stand and squat on the toilet and spray crap everywhere please, noble civilized immigrants."

This leftist hivemind necessity to equate every culture as if all cultures have exactly the same level of civility and extremity is unbelievably insane.

Blogger Amanda said...It's interesting that now Trump has backtracked away from his original proposal in which he said ALL Muslims would not be allowed entry into the US. As of this morning he says he would make exceptions for military members, US citizens, those entering for sports events (lol!) and possibly those entering for business purposes. Hahahahahahaaah! Ya can't make this stuff up folks, it's the best reality show on TV. Republcans created this monster, now it'll be up to them to kill it.

And that, folks, is the art of the deal. Fools like Amanda fall for it over and over again and don't even see it when it's pointed out to them.

Angie dear, as Althouse said, an echo chamber is boring as hell. Sorry that you are having trouble understanding the points that a few liberals that bother commenting here are making. Despite the monumental mess conservatives have created in their Party and in America in general, I continue to have hope for conservatives, no one is a lost cause.

"Lots of Muslims want to leave, to jihad too. How about those millions of noble immigrants causing utter chaos in Europe? Seen Swedish rape stats lately, Brando? But they wanted to leave the middle east which means they're Good Peoples, right?"

Did I not state in my earlier post that obviously some people trying to get into our country are up to no good? Where did I say that everyone emigrating from those countries is all good?

"But, their desire to come here does not necessarily correlate with a desire to CHANGE. How many Northerners move down South and then vote for politicians to do the same things that ruined the place they originally came from? How many Mexicans come here and elect people who are as corrupt as their pols back home?"

That's true, and I've acknowledged as much in my earlier comments. There are a lot of cases in Europe more than the U.S. (where assimilation has been more successful) where Muslim immigrants have tried to retain a lot of the more vile traditions that others have been trying to escape in the original country. But even with that being the case, immigrants tend to differ a great deal from those they left behind--how exactly they differ and to what degree is the question.

Bismarck once stated that American will be the greatest country on Earth because the people with the spirit to move there are the strongest, most motivated people on Earth.Of course, he was correct.Constitutionally and historically Trump's position is well grounded. We've excluded all sorts of people for their belief systems. We can do it again.Should do it again.Maybe by doing so this will motivate the existing community of muslim-americans to start acting like better American citizens... call out the radicals among them, censure terrorist supporters and their enablers, speak openly and often about their own love of country and embrace of freedom, and so on. Today that community is quiet and hiding behind the very freedoms that were denied them in their countries of origin.They could be a real resource in this fight.Let us hope that they open their eyes and steel their spines.Inshahallah.

Angelyne: Garage is better than garagette because he's already recognized he hasn't the smarts to keep up, so he' content with dumping a turd in the punchbowl. Garagette isn't that smart.She wasn't whom Ms. Althouse had in mind when she put out a call for better leftie commenters.

Poor Eric, lol. Yes indeed he is playing "them" like a fiddle, but 'they' haven't realized it yet.

Before Trump's campaign:

1) We couldn't really do anything about illegal immigration.2) We couldn't limit immigration for any practical reason3) We have to be nice and friendly to keep Muslims placated (because, remember, it's ALWAYS the victim's fault --- just like how women who wear short skirts asked for a raping, amiright?)4) Jeb Bush was inevitable5) The Iran Deal wasn't that bad6) Muslims were pretty unhappy over 9/117) Immigration is a universal good. For real.

Things change. He's changing the entire dynamic. And you keep falling for it. You're the Charlie Brown to his Lucy.

Blogger Anglelyne said...Livermoron: Angelyne: Garage is better than garagette because he's already recognized he hasn't the smarts to keep up, so he' content with dumping a turd in the punchbowl. Garagette isn't that smart.

Good point.

She wasn't whom Ms. Althouse had in mind when she put out a call for better leftie commenters.

Certainly haven't sent the A team, have they?--------------------------------

I'm confused by this policy. Leaing aside for a moment the question of whether or not it's morally abhorrent, we already have millions of Muslims in this country. If they become radicalized, it makes zero difference whether we let in more or not. Isn't the primarily relevant question: "How do we stop Muslim-Americans from radicalizing/committing acts of terror against soft targets?"

This whole immigration question seems like such a sideshow to me. I get that Trump's strong suit is to bash immigrants, so he's taking the opportunity to do so, but why is everyone else taking it so seriously?

What are we doing or going to do now that we couldn't before? Saying he'll build a fabulous wall--even if he delivered on it, which I doubt--doesn't solve the problem.

"3) We have to be nice and friendly to keep Muslims placated (because, remember, it's ALWAYS the victim's fault --- just like how women who wear short skirts asked for a raping, amiright?)"

Some on the right have made the point of trying to distinguish "good Muslims" from the ones we're fighting against, and frankly that's still the mainstream GOP position (it's why we've been doing nationbuilding instead of annihilation in Iraq, Afghan, etc.). But as I recall the argument was more about separating out our enemies from the rest of the billion Muslims than "being nice so they won't hurt us". Anyone arguing for the latter deserves scorn, but I don't recall that ever being a majority sentiment.

"4) Jeb Bush was inevitable"

Admittedly some in the media came close to this, but I don't recall anyone saying he was "inevitable." He was the front runner at first, but even then his lead was small. Do you think without Trump Jeb still would be the frontrunner? I doubt it.

"5) The Iran Deal wasn't that bad"

Who on the right said that? I don't recall any GOPers speaking out in favor of the deal, at least any currently in office or running for president. The closest I've seen is Kasich saying he'd wait and see what the situation on the ground was before rescinding it once he took office.

"6) Muslims were pretty unhappy over 9/11"

Did anyone deny that at least some Muslims cheered 9/11? The question is how many, and despite Trump's assurances I'm not about to buy into his narrative that "thousands" were cheering here in the U.S. and he saw it (live or on TV). I can believe more were secretly happy, but openly cheering here in the States? Let's see some verification before we believe another of Trump's "trust me"s.

"7) Immigration is a universal good. For real."

Immigration like most changes to society and the economy is a mixed bag. But that's an issue that has been long debated--remember the controversy over Pete Wilson's Prop 97 (I might have the Prop # wrong) back in the '90s? Or Perry vs. Romney in 2012? Just because Trump says he "brought it all to the table" doesn't make it so.

OGWiseman: Leaing aside for a moment the question of whether or not it's morally abhorrent....

I get that Trump's strong suit is to bash immigrants...

Lol.

we already have millions of Muslims in this country. If they become radicalized, it makes zero difference whether we let in more or not...

Lol+++.

If your country has a population you think might be prone to radicalizing and harshing everybody else's quality of life, only a complete airhead would seriously think that letting more of 'em in couldn't make possibly things worse.

What are we doing or going to do now that we couldn't before? Saying he'll build a fabulous wall--even if he delivered on it, which I doubt--doesn't solve the problem.

For me, it's the first time I've heard something besides "comprehensive reform", which has become code for "amnesty". Is his proposal realistic? I say it's more realistic than the usual Republican "Well, what can we do about the current illegals? We got to fix that issue FIRST" mentality that has been a disaster for decades.

Some on the right have made the point of trying to distinguish "good Muslims" from the ones we're fighting against, and frankly that's still the mainstream GOP position (it's why we've been doing nationbuilding instead of annihilation in Iraq, Afghan, etc.). But as I recall the argument was more about separating out our enemies from the rest of the billion Muslims than "being nice so they won't hurt us". Anyone arguing for the latter deserves scorn, but I don't recall that ever being a majority sentiment.

I'd argue, at a certain point, that "moderate" Muslims are a far smaller minority than most people wish to realize. Even those that won't attack seem to grow in number in terms of supporting some of the thoroughly loathsome practices of Islam. If harsh words turn them violent, then they are every inch as bad as their worst hater thinks they are (think about how insulting it is to think that people have to tip-toe around an adult's feelings or else they'll KILL them. No other group gets that treatment).

Admittedly some in the media came close to this, but I don't recall anyone saying he was "inevitable." He was the front runner at first, but even then his lead was small. Do you think without Trump Jeb still would be the frontrunner? I doubt it.

I think without Trump, Bush's money would've been a killer. Bush could've spent the others into oblivion, debates would've been watched by far fewer (giving fewer people a chance to break out), etc.

Did anyone deny that at least some Muslims cheered 9/11? The question is how many, and despite Trump's assurances I'm not about to buy into his narrative that "thousands" were cheering here in the U.S. and he saw it (live or on TV). I can believe more were secretly happy, but openly cheering here in the States? Let's see some verification before we believe another of Trump's "trust me"s.

Do I believe Trump on this? No. Some did. But he's, bare minimum, forcing the media to cover things they've desperately tried to avoid covering since then. The media blackout on even Palestinian celebrations has been noted and Trump is bringing it all back out into the limelight. He's showing, at least to me, that all of our placating of their feelings has failed and it's time for a different strategy.

Immigration like most changes to society and the economy is a mixed bag. But that's an issue that has been long debated--remember the controversy over Pete Wilson's Prop 97 (I might have the Prop # wrong) back in the '90s? Or Perry vs. Romney in 2012? Just because Trump says he "brought it all to the table" doesn't make it so.

For GOP Presidential candidates, how often did any of them speak out against immigration? I loved Romney and he was weak on it, at best. Immigration has a wealth of problems that the GOP has tried, desperately, to hide (and that the Dems, I don't think, care about). And it's still the case because if another candidate decided to go after immigration hard, Trump would likely cease to be a factor. But they won't. Even Cruz won't.

Brando: What a shitty thing to say: Some on the right have made the point of trying to distinguish "good Muslims"{yeah, racism straight up!!!}All your points boil down to 'Republicans are racist."You are like a child.

Consider:Some on the left have made the point of not trying to distinguish "bad muslims".

Impugnations aren't a basis for reasoned discourse. Of course, not everyone is capable.SWIDT?

Trump should say that he would fund commercials in major airtime featuring leaders from the US Muslim community announcing a generous reward program for tips leading to the arrest of terrorists. The rewards to be funded solely from funds raised by same Muslim community and 100% matching from Donald J. Trump.It's time all loyal Americans stepped up.

Trump is making a calculated gamble that the people who will get upset by this aren't the sort of people who'd vote for him anyway and that he will benefit from people who sort of feel the same way privately having that view ridiculed by the media and Democrats.

And while I don't think Trump could bank on this, he may also be calculating that the President's continued weakness on Islamic terrorism/ISIS may turn this into the election's overriding issue. That goes back to the sleeper idea in Ann's post - Trump is going to get blasted for now in the wake of one attack. If the number of attacks multiply and the federal response feels inadequate, people may well turn to Trump as the only candidate who gets the problem.

The strategic problem with trying to shut down all reasonable debate on the jihad problem due to sensitivity concerns is that if the problem continues to manifest, as it has, eventually the public's desire to deal with the problem will lead it to unsavory characters who say and do outrageous things because the moderates didn't have the guts or the will to deal with the problem when they could.

"For me, it's the first time I've heard something besides "comprehensive reform", which has become code for "amnesty". Is his proposal realistic? I say it's more realistic than the usual Republican "Well, what can we do about the current illegals? We got to fix that issue FIRST" mentality that has been a disaster for decades."

I recall when comprehensive reform was proposed by Bush during his second term, the main thing that killed it was GOPers like Tom Tancredo opposing it precisely because they thought it would mean amnesty only. The next time the issue was raised was in the 2012 campaign, and Romney took a firm anti-amnesty position (opposed by Perry). All Trump did was piggy-back on what was already the majority opinion in the GOP.

"I'd argue, at a certain point, that "moderate" Muslims are a far smaller minority than most people wish to realize"

That's true to the extent of how one defines "moderate" and obviously some people think the problem is much smaller than it is. But the problem remains the same--out of a population of about a billion, we have some number who are actively trying to do us harm, and some larger number willing to tolerate that.

"I think without Trump, Bush's money would've been a killer. Bush could've spent the others into oblivion, debates would've been watched by far fewer (giving fewer people a chance to break out), etc."

The money would certainly have been helpful, but it's not unusual for an overrated candidate (which Jeb was) to squander that and low-funded candidates to catch up. It's hard to argue a hypothetical, but in a large field of plausible candidates (several senators, governors, etc.) I think Bush's blandness and poor campaign skills would have seen him knocked down soon enough.

That's true. The focus of the campaign has certainly changed due to Trump. On the downside, for me, it also means a lot of attention is drawn away from weaknesses in the Democratic nominee and the incumbent administration. Whatever you think of Trump's proposal, the fact that we now are arguing over that and not Obama's tepid anti-terrorism policy (e.g., the "jayvee team" just inspired a deadly attack on U.S. soil) or the lawless insanity going on in our college campuses and the murder rate going up for the first time in decades--I see a lot of missed opportunity here.

"For GOP Presidential candidates, how often did any of them speak out against immigration?"

In the last two cycles, the recession and for 2004/2008 the Iraq War obviously took precedence. These guys follow the polls and focus groups--if immigration is Issue 1 for most people, they'll talk about it more. Regardless, I don't think anyone--even Trump, if he somehow could beat Hillary--is going to "fix" illegal immigration.

Brando: Immigration like most changes to society and the economy is a mixed bag. But that's an issue that has been long debated--remember the controversy over Pete Wilson's Prop 97 (I might have the Prop # wrong) back in the '90s? Or Perry vs. Romney in 2012? Just because Trump says he "brought it all to the table" doesn't make it so.

Give it a rest, Brando. Nobody is arguing that immigration as an issue didn't exist until Trump showed up. Duh - obviously people have been angry about it for years, there have been immigration control organizations around for a long time, and a handful of pols (like Tancredo and Sessions) who care about it. As for how the issue has been handled politically, I can't tell if you're being willfully obtuse about this, ignorant on the history, or really naïve about the Republican establishment at the national level. (And no, Brando, nobody thinks you, personally, are a member of said establishment.)

I recall when comprehensive reform was proposed by Bush during his second term, the main thing that killed it was GOPers like Tom Tancredo opposing it precisely because they thought it would mean amnesty only.

What killed it was voices in the wilderness like Tancredo backed by angry constituents burning up the congressional phone lines, and the rest of the GOP realizing that, unfortunately, they were going to have take a strategic retreat and not get the amnesty, increased immigration, and zero border control that they wanted. Yup, the GOP has always been down with their constituents on immigration issues. (We want to control immigration! Honest! The Democrats just keep getting in our way!)

The next time the issue was raised was in the 2012 campaign, and Romney took a firm anti-amnesty position (opposed by Perry). All Trump did was piggy-back on what was already the majority opinion in the GOP.

That you are delusional on this issue is obvious to anyone who's followed the history of the issue in general or "comprehensive immigration reform" in particular. The "majority opinion in the GOP" establishment (you know, the guys who control the money) is for MOAR MOAR MOAR immigration of all kinds. You don't seem to quite understand what follows from that fact.

It's one thing to not care all that much about an issue, and you obviously don't think our immigration problems are that big a deal, or a problem at all. Fine. To not care, not know much about, but still feel the need to weigh in at length on, stupidly - that's just kinda weird.